27-11-2002 20:18									#61
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Zkribbler If the Supremes were consistent (which they are not), they would have to find such a ban would be constitutional. In Hardwick, they upheld the constitutionality of a law banning homosexual sex on the grounds that homosexual activity spreads AIDS more readily than hetrosexual activity. Your hypothetical presents a similar scenario.

Do you think that SCOTUS is right on that point? I sure don't. Maybe I'm biased, but with the recent knowledge that over half of all AIDS cases now are women, there's little justification for upholding the above notions. And if someone wants to be unsafe and put themselves at risk for HIV, shouldn't that be their choice? Laws designed to prevent reckless behavior that might harm others is one thing, but is there any moral justification for a law that prohibits people from a private activity that isn't necessarily or even probably harmful just to save a few stupid souls from their own idiocy?

	27-11-2002 20:22									#62
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Sikander Because they volunteered?

if the state protects them by not allowing them alcohol, because they are too imature, how the hell can it allow them to go and shoot people.

	27-11-2002 20:56									#63
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd 14th Amendment.

Hypocrite.

	28-11-2002 00:52									#64
	Remove this text

quote: Hypocrite.

Not really. The 14th was probably passed illegally, yet it is recognized as legal and that won't be changing. Furthermore, the 14th Amendment SHOULD be there, as I fail to see why a State should be able to violate the rights of people living within it any more than the federal government should.

	28-11-2002 01:06									#65
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Equal protection does not apply to drinking. Drinking is a priviledge, not a right.

	28-11-2002 01:16									#66
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Drinking is a right. Just not one proscribed by the Constitution.

	28-11-2002 03:36									#67
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Btw do people really get fined or jailed for underage drinking in the US

I mean 500 DOLLARS??! That's just... outrageous. And I find it quite weird that any institution would spend so much resources (I mean raising charges and all) on such a normal thing as an underage drinking.

And alcohol awareness classes??

Now, this is just pathetic.

Do you get a criminal record, too, for underage drinking or "crimes" like that?

	28-11-2002 09:36									#68
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Do you think that SCOTUS is right on that point?

Moi?? I rarely agree with the Supremes on anything! The question was the constitutionality of the law; the Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says; and I was just relating the warped reasoning of the Court.

quote: Originally posted by Anodyne Do you get a criminal record, too, for underage drinking or "crimes" like that?

You get a juvenile record. But you are not "convicted" of a "crime." You're found to be (IIRC) "a ward of the state" or a "deliquent" or some such. Plus, when you get to be an adult, your juvie record is sealed.

	28-11-2002 10:36									#69
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Equal protection does not apply to drinking. Drinking is a priviledge, not a right.

Fine, then by that argument, being able to eat is a privilege too. I don't see the right to eat food anywhere in the Constitution.

Or any number of other things.

Being able to drink is most certainly a right.

	28-11-2002 11:03									#70
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Anodyne Now, this is just pathetic.

Drinking's bad, m'kay?
Beer is bad. Whiskey is bad. Absinthe is bad, m'kay?
Uh... Vodka's bad. Cognac is bad. Lager is bad, m'kay?
Mixers are bad... alco-pops are very, very bad.
American beer is very, very, very bad. M'kay?

So in conclusion... drinking's bad, m'kay? M'kay.

	28-11-2002 11:12									#71
	Full PM-box? Change here!

But bourbon is good.

	28-11-2002 11:55									#72
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Skanky Burns But bourbon is good.

One of the few drinks as yet largely unbastardised by the modern world.

But who knows... they're already taking the worm out of absinthe and mass producing spanish 'wine'. I had a can of some Irish beer the other day which... rather than being full of body like you would expect was in fact 100% dregs. All those in the six-pack were the same. It's incredible that people can get away with such **** and more incredible that people would be willing to buy them....

	28-11-2002 12:54									#73
	Tired of ads?

quote: Fine, then by that argument, being able to eat is a privilege too. I don't see the right to eat food anywhere in the Constitution.

No, it isn't, that is why the FDA can ban foods that it thinks are dangerous. It couldn't do that if eating food was a right.

And if eating food is a right, I guess welfare is a right too, because the poor are just exercising their God-given right to eat .

Sorry David, you are wrong... again.

	28-11-2002 12:56									#74
	Tired of ads?

Not to nitpick but doesn't the FDA ban the selling and distribution of foods, not eating of foods?

	28-11-2002 13:39									#75
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: No, it isn't, that is why the FDA can ban foods that it thinks are dangerous. It couldn't do that if eating food was a right.

Answered by Asher. The FDA can't stop me from eating anything.

quote: And if eating food is a right, I guess welfare is a right too, because the poor are just exercising their God-given right to eat

Sorry, eating food is a right if you have it or can buy it. You don't have the right to food if you can't afford it - I would think that is obvious, given my perspective. Do try to interpret things in the way I mean them, rather than trying to nitpick, please.

	28-11-2002 13:44									#76
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Not to nitpick but doesn't the FDA ban the selling and distribution of foods, not eating of foods?

One leads to the other, Asher .

quote: The FDA can't stop me from eating anything.

Yes it can. What if you want to eat some sort of the food the FDA has banned to sell?

quote: Sorry, eating food is a right if you have it or can buy it. You don't have the right to food if you can't afford it - I would think that is obvious, given my perspective. Do try to interpret things in the way I mean them, rather than trying to nitpick, please.

Um NO! You do not gain rights if you can afford them. If something is based on money it is a priviledge, NOT a right. A right is universal.

If you claim eating food is a right. Then I'll say 14th Amendment and claim that people that are starving are being denied of equal protection and should have their meals provided for.

I think the problem is that you don't know the difference between a right and a priviledge.

	28-11-2002 13:51									#77
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Yes it can. What if you want to eat some sort of the food the FDA has banned to sell?

If I have it, they can't stop me from eating it. If my friend gives it to me, they can't stop me from eating it. It is not in their power to prevent me from eating foods they ban.

quote: Um NO! You do not gain rights if you can afford them. If something is based on money it is a priviledge, NOT a right. A right is universal.

Sure, but a property right is universal. Everyone has the right to own property. That doesn't mean everyone is entitled to all the property in the world. They have to have some means of obtaining that property, first. And that means has to be one that doesn't infringe on someone else's property right. So, basically, they can buy or trade for said property.

Just because someone has a right doesn't necessarily mean they can exercise it. Can a mute person exercise their right to free speech? Of course not, but they still retain that right.

quote: If you claim eating food is a right. Then I'll say 14th Amendment and claim that people that are starving are being denied of equal protection and should have their meals provided for.

Fine, then I'll claim the 14th Amendment and demand all the property you own. If there are a such thing as property rights, and I don't own any property, surely I'm entitled to the property of other people, right?

Come on, that's a ridiculous argument.

quote: I think the problem is that you don't know the difference between a right and a priviledge.

The problem is we have different definitions. If your parents let you stay up 10 minutes past your bedtime, that's a priviledge. If the government imposes a national bedtime, they are infringing on your rights.

	28-11-2002 14:01									#78
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Sure, but a property right is universal. Everyone has the right to own property. That doesn't mean everyone is entitled to all the property in the world. They have to have some means of obtaining that property, first.

A person's body is his property. Ergo, you do not need to pay money for property ownership. You just need money for MORE property ownership. You do not start off with food. You need money even for the most minor of foods.

quote: If there are a such thing as property rights, and I don't own any property, surely I'm entitled to the property of other people, right?

Everyone owns property: their own bodies. Therefore they are not being discriminated against for their property rights. A person with no food, if food is a right, is being deprived of his food rights.

quote: If your parents let you stay up 10 minutes past your bedtime, that's a priviledge. If the government imposes a national bedtime, they are infringing on your rights.

The government can impose a curfew without infringing on your rights. A curfew basically constrains you to your property and prevents you from using public property.

A national bedtime infringes on your property rights by preventing you from using your property.


And I can prove that drinking is not a right by pointing to all the dry counties that exist in the United States.


*sigh* I guess this like arguing with Snapcase on music.

	28-11-2002 14:16									#79
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: A person's body is his property. Ergo, you do not need to pay money for property ownership. You just need money for MORE property ownership. You do not start off with food. You need money even for the most minor of foods.

So your assertion is that the only property right is to your body? Would you be of the opinion that you own the labor your body produces, and so forth?

quote: The government can impose a curfew without infringing on your rights. A curfew basically constrains you to your property and prevents you from using public property.

Even if I accept that - which I don't - many curfews during war time include things such as blackouts, and prohibitions against even being out of your house on your own property. That's certainly a violation of rights - although this is a side issue.

quote: A national bedtime infringes on your property rights by preventing you from using your property.

Precisely the point. Restrictions against adults drinking violate rights for exactly the same reason.

quote: And I can prove that drinking is not a right by pointing to all the dry counties that exist in the United States.

All that says to me is that lots of counties violate the rights of the citizens within the counties.

	28-11-2002 14:24									#80
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Would you be of the opinion that you own the labor your body produces, and so forth?

Not if you contract to say that the value that the labor of your body produces goes to the employer.

Basically I don't believe in inalienable rights.

quote: many curfews during war time include things such as blackouts, and prohibitions against even being out of your house on your own property. That's certainly a violation of rights

Yep, I agree.

Though I guess the government rationalizes blackouts by claiming a national security interest. Which it can, since it of course it gives us rights.

quote: Restrictions against adults drinking violate rights for exactly the same reason.

Not if it has been banned by the FDA. Then it isn't your property. A banned substance cannot be legal property. At the very least the property right isn't protected.

Also you can be restricted from using your own property on someone else's property. Thus the government can ban people from drinking alcohol in certain places because you are using that property on someone else's property.

quote: All that says to me is that lots of counties violate the rights of the citizens within the counties.

That is merely your opinion, which outside of your room in Austin, Texas, does not hold any weight at all. Especially not with the Supreme Court of any state or most (if not all) legislators.

	28-11-2002 14:55									#81
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Not if you contract to say that the value that the labor of your body produces goes to the employer.

Clearly, but wouldn't you agree that you own it until you contract it out, and at that point you own whatever compensation you receive?

quote: Though I guess the government rationalizes blackouts by claiming a national security interest. Which it can, since it of course it gives us rights.

Rights supercede government, but this isn't a concept we'll agree on.

quote: Not if it has been banned by the FDA. Then it isn't your property. A banned substance cannot be legal property. At the very least the property right isn't protected.

I guess the question is if certain substances can be banned. I say they can't.

quote: Also you can be restricted from using your own property on someone else's property. Thus the government can ban people from drinking alcohol in certain places because you are using that property on someone else's property.

First of all, even if I agreed with that, you aren't addressing the issue of the government targeting SPECIFIC people.

Secondly, the government can't stop me from drinking at my neighbor's house any more than it can stop me from drinking at mine. Only my neighbor has the right to allow me or disallow me to drink at his house.

Thirdly, if you want to use the concept of public property, two points: First, my taxes went to that property, so it's part mine, and second, I don't agree with taxes.

quote: That is merely your opinion, which outside of your room in Austin, Texas, does not hold any weight at all. Especially not with the Supreme Court of any state or most (if not all) legislators.

I guess I'll just content myself with the rightness of my position

	28-11-2002 15:42									#82
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by TheStinger if the state protects them by not allowing them alcohol, because they are too imature, how the hell can it allow them to go and shoot people.

The laws in this case are for the protection of U.S. civil society in general. In the case of foreign war, it isn't an issue.

	29-11-2002 01:44									#83
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: The laws in this case are for the protection of U.S. civil society in general. In the case of foreign war, it isn't an issue.

Well, at least you just admitted that we don't fight wars in order to protect our own society. I'll have to remember that one, but thanks for making one of my (unrelated but common) points.

	29-11-2002 17:50									#84
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Dissident no. where can I find it? sounds hilariuos. I love those cheesy gov. movies.

I didn't see anyone respond, so: it's a mainstay of the cult rental market; I'll bet you can get it anyplace that's not a Blockbuster et al. chain. Usually I think those movies are pretty dumb and predictable, but this one is great -- up there with the J. Edgar Hoover "Is Your Neighbor a Communist?" 50's shorts. "When in your neighbor's home, do you notice odd literature or suspect-sounding books..." Then again, I shouldn't joke, it sounds like something from today.

	29-11-2002 18:12									#85
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Dissident OK folks. There is medical evidence that young adults as well as kids cannot "handle" alcohol as well as adults. There is enough medical evidence out there to warrant keeping 21 as the age of being able to purchase alcohol. Of course kids drink anyways- but they are setting themselves up to become alcoholics this way. Granted kids in France drink wine at an early age. But their culture is different.

I wonder then why can somebody be in the military when he/she is 17-18 or even be able to carry a gun at that age but not allowed to drink! I know all the arguments believe me, I was an exchange student in the US and I couldn't legally drink.


So long...

	29-11-2002 20:09									#86
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

A couple of things we should keep in mind.

We are not discussing here the power of the federal government. It's not the feds that are limiting the drinking age, but the several states.

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The states have the "police power," and, as long as the law in question is not infringing upon a fundamental right (free speech, free religion, due process, etc.), the state merely needs to show a rational relationship between the law and the public health and safety.

	29-11-2002 23:11									#87
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: The states have the "police power," and, as long as the law in question is not infringing upon a fundamental right

Which is precisely the point. Equal protection under the law IS a fundamental right (and I'd even consider being able to freely drink what one chooses to be a fundamental right).

	30-11-2002 01:06									#88
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Unfortunately, the Founding Fathers lacked the foreslight to put Freedom of Pleasure into the Constitution, and so getting drunk is not a fundamental right.

You have a good argument, though, about equal protection being a fundamental right.

In order for the government to infringe upon a fundamental right, it must show a compelling state interest, and any infringement must be narrowly tailored.

Saving lives on the highway would be a compelling state interest.

But...is there a way to more narrowly tailor this law to lessen the infringement on the citizens' freedom? That is the question.

	30-11-2002 04:01									#89
	Tired of ads?

They should raise the drinking age to 120.
Along with the smoking age.

Most people by that age are usually too old to remember what cigarettes and drinks are anyways...

	30-11-2002 04:21									#90
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Who cares?